There is some misunderstanding
here, among Florida voters: Even though I (editor-in-chief,
Gordon W. Watts) support removing marijuana from 'Schedule 1'
status (and thus permitting research), “weed”
(marijuana) is not only illegal, it will remain
illegal under Federal Law -and could get
you arrested, despite the lies that are told in the Ballot
Language of Am.2 - PROOF: *Profile
pic caption: “Marijuana:
Proud sponsors of..um.. we forgot!” --Bevis & Butthead
(Various pics combined used under Federal Fair Use guidelines:
for review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment,
and parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary
of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news
report)

[[""Since
1970, the federal government has refused to recognize the medical
value of marijuana. Marijuana is still a schedule one substance in
their eyes, and so they have the “authority” to enforce
their laws, even in medical marijuana states – states who voted
for and who want medical marijuana.

What does this mean? Let’s
say you live in a medical marijuana state. You have obtained your
medical marijuana card through the correct, legal, and legitimate
channels and you’re in total compliance with your state’s
laws regarding medical marijuana. If you get arrested and are facing
federal charges for marijuana cultivation, for example, you are not
allowed to use your state’s medical marijuana laws as a
defense. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal in Colorado,
it’s illegal under federal law.

On July 17,
Representative Farr (D-CA), and 18 co-sponsors, introduced HR 6134,
The Truth in Trials Act, which would fix this problem and allow
people tried in federal court for marijuana related offenses to call
upon evidence that they were in compliance with their state’s
medical marijuana laws. It doesn’t matter if it’s illegal
under federal law, you’re protected under Colorado law.

“Truth
in Trials Act Protects State Medical Marijuana from Federal
Prosecution,” July 19, 2012, by Drew Stromberg""]]http://ssdp.org/news/blog/truth-in-trials-act-protects-state-medical-marijuana-from-federal-prosecution/(Quotes
used under Federal Fair Use guidelines: for review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment, and parody of some of the
content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with
brief quotations, in a news report)>>This comes from a "pro-weed"
website, and even this website here admits I'm correct: Methinks the
supporters on Amendment Two are too stoned to see this.^^**

GORDON RESPONDS: The Am.2
summary states the following: “Applies only to Florida law.
Does not authorize violations of federal law or any non-medical use,
possession or production of marijuana.” When read together with
the entire ballot summary and title, these statements imply that
qualifying patients may lawfully use and possess marijuana if the
amendment passes. However, this is absolutely false. Whether or not
this amendment passes, the medical use of marijuana will remain a
prosecutable federal crime - that could get you arrested, charged,
and prosecuted. Period.

PROOF:
Read the ACTUAL Ballot Language here:http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc13-2006.pdf Thanks to a Patriot friend, I am reminded that
the FEDERAL LAW has jurisdiction and TRUMPS anything State - meaning
that even if Florida's “Medical Marijuana” Amendment 2
passes, Feds will still legally be able to arrest, charge, and
prosecute you for weed possession - period –
PROOF:

* Article
VI,
Paragraph 2 of The
U.S. Constitution
is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that
the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence
over state laws, and even state
constitutions. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause(Fair
Use Quote)

“The
2005 U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales
vs. Raich
established the federal government has the right to use the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution to regulate homegrown marijuana, even
when it’s for approved medicinal use. DEA officials destroyed
Oakland, Calif., resident Angel Raich’s homegrown marijuana
plants in 2002, despite the fact Raich’s possession was legal
under California’s Proposition 215 medical marijuana law,
which was passed in 1996. [line break] Raich sued the federal
government and lost, but California’s law was not affected.
The ruling showed that the federal government cannot force states to
criminalize something (marijuana, in this case), but can enforce its
own laws.”PolitiFact:
“[Fla. Atty. General] Pam Bondi says medical marijuana is
illegal under federal law, with or without amendment”: Rated
'TRUE' - http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/dec/17/pam-bondi/pam-bondi-says-medical-marijuana-illegal-under-fed/

[[“Marin
Alliance for Med. Marijuana v. Holder

866 F.Supp.2d 1142 (E.D. Cal.
2011)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District
Judge.

Three medical marijuana
dispensaries, one of their landlords and a medical marijuana patient
bring the instant action to challenge recent threats by the United
States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to take legal action
against landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries in the Northern
District of California. The parties are now before the Court on
Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”),
which seeks an immediate injunction to prevent the federal government
from arresting, prosecuting, or otherwise seeking sanctions or
forfeitures against medical marijuana growers and providers who
operate under the auspices of California's Compassionate Use Act of
1996. As will be set forth below, binding Supreme Court and Ninth
Circuit precedent foreclose Plaintiffs' claims, and therefore, the
Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO.1

SUBJECT: Investigations and
Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides
clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have
enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana...Of course, no
State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of
factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal
prosecution may be warranted...Your offices should continue to review
marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent
with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set
forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance
from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles
of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States
Attorneys”]]

Besides
being an illegal (unconstitutional) amendment, the ballot language is
misleading (dishonest). Lastly, weed may be helpful, but remembering
how thalidomide was “rushed” into the market, with deadly
results, we need more research: Weed advocates should seek removal of
'Schedule 1' status, and not 'rush' things: Impatience can be deadly.

OK,
now that we've gotten all serious & realised that I'm correct in
my claims that this amendment contains deceptive lies –that
could get you arrested (click
the links to find out),
here's a little humour:

Florida's
Amendment 2A well stoned
militia, being necessary to the security of a police state, the right
of the people to keep and bear weed, shall not be infringed.

NEW:
Here's some additional weed research – some of it “anti-weed,”
but also some of it “pro-weed,” which should show you
that I'm open-minded –and not “prejudiced” against
my weed-smoking, pot-head friends:

Note
here that top
item
says: “Pam Bondi says medical marijuana is illegal under
federal law, with or without amendment...Even with the caveats
implied by the U.S. government’s recent guidance, Bondi’s
office declared "whether the Amendment passes or not, the
medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense." Whether
you’re a supporter of states’ rights or not, she’s
correct. [line break] We
rate this statement True”

This
confirms –and vindicates – my initial legal analyses;
however, the bottom item (showing Marijuana is “less toxic”
than alcohol) shows, clearly, that both PolitiFact (who published
this) and myself (who is citing it here) are not narrow-minded
“haters” of weed. While weed, indeed, is not
that healthy, I am an unbiased and honest “Ron Paul”
Republican who admits that it is less harmful than alcohol.

Here
are additional citations that show I am not a “hater” of
Liberal or Democratic causes (Civil Rights for African Americans) or
prominent Democratic Leaders (Pres. Barack Obama) →

(
LEGAL
DISCLAIMER:
Selected screen-shots from the PolitiFact 'fact checker' website,
cited & used under Federal Fair Use guidelines: for review or
criticism for purposes of illustration or comment, and summary of an
address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report –
THIS news report, to be exact. )

Lastly,
see the last page following: Here are still more citations that show
I am not a “hater” of Liberal or Democratic causes: I
cite some items that support traditionally liberal, Democratic,
and/or pro-weed claims...